Humility versus professional will: cultivating level 5 leadership qualities

¶ … Jim Collins

Level 5 Leadership: Which is harder to cultivate within yourself: humility or will?

Personal humility and professional will are both excellent characters in a leader. In fact Jim Collins (2001) in his book Good to Great reported that these qualities are paramount in becoming a level 5 leader. Many would argue that these are characteristics that one is born with or that some life event or environmental exposure has instilled these qualities in them (Collins, 2001). Yet there are many leaders who do not have all of the qualities of a level 5 leader yet are on the journey towards attainment. When looking at the two characteristics it would seem that professional will is an attribute that is more often seen in leaders whereas humility appears to be a bit harder to cultivate.

One may anticipate that professional will, an unwavering ability to do whatever it takes to ensure the success of the company, is a characteristic that many leaders exhibit (Collins, 2001). In many cases it is what brings them into management and leadership positions to begin with. They are driven and goal oriented; many of them have worked quite hard to get to the positions that they hold within their companies. Oftentimes what has gotten this person to a leadership position has been their ability to make decisions and to get others to follow these decisions. Many leaders can be categorized as fearless and willing to make difficult decisions that they believe will lead to the success of their company.

However, truly having humility is a very different concept. Humility has been defined as the act of being humble, lacking pretense, and lack of self-assertion (Merriam Webster). Lack of self-assertion comes into play when a leader is able to put aside their needs and ego in order to achieve success on behalf of the company (Collins, 2001). These leaders do not come in with a personal agenda, the company's success is their only driving force and they will do whatever it takes to achieve greatness on behalf of the company.

When we look at many of our leaders, the characteristics that drew them to leadership positions are their charismatic nature and, at times, their ego. In addition being recognized for their skill and accomplishments has led to advancement in rank and responsibility. Persons who emerge into management positions are often personable, persuasive, outgoing, and comfortable as the center of attention. Collins (2001) explains that in level 5 leadership the ambition that often drives a leader is still an important aspect but that it should be directed toward the success of the company rather than personal gains. In order to be an effective level 5 leader one must be able to put the ego a side and the company first, displaying a humbleness that is often not present in leaders.

Yet humility is a more difficult attribute to cultivate in ourselves and others. To truly put the company above oneself is outside of what is commonly observable in human nature. Many people engage in the work they do for the rewards they reap from it whether it is fame, fortune, or power (Collins, 2001). Leaders who are used to directly impacting the success of the company through their decision making and power often find it difficult to let go of the recognition that they receive for it (Collins, 2001). This struggle to do so can result in negative outcomes for a company particularly after the leader is gone. Even for leaders who start out with the intention of trying to be humble, the overwhelming force of not taking credit for successes and wanting to be in the limelight may be hard to resist.

For leaders who do not possess humility, it may be no small task for them to adopt this mindset. To be humble one must be able to truly reflect on who they are as a person and a leader and be able to accept those qualities even if they bring to light imperfections (Collins, 2001). Accepting these limitations in oneself will allow them to utilize the strengths of their employees to fill those gaps. In order to be effective a level 5 leader must be able to recognize that they alone cannot solve all of the problems of the company or be responsible for all of the leadership that occurs in that environment. Having humility allows one to share leadership responsibilities with persons of all levels of the company as well as instilling systems and purposeful action that can easily be carried onto into future generations of leadership. An environment where responsibility is shared at all levels of the company creates systems and frameworks that exist separate from the leaders themselves. Shared productive leadership can ensure the long-term success of a company. According to Collins (2001), a level 5 leader will be concerned that the company will be able to continue just as successfully after they leave. They will be less concerned with being credited for the company's present success and more concerned with preparing successors to continue the company's work.

Who First?

Level 5 leaders as explained by Collins (2001) made a priority of hiring highly qualified driven individuals who could come together and make the company a success. Yet he found that there was no significant correlation between compensation with retention (Collins, 2001). Employees who were found to be solid, driven leaders were those who worked for the company due to the satisfaction of being a part of a strong team as well as having the desire to do everything they could to see the company succeed (Collins, 2001). Therefore the role that compensation plays in selecting the right employees to be a part of the team may simply be that of acquisition. According to Collins (2001), in order to get the right people on the bus you may have to provide them with good benefits packages yet once they are committed to the company, their teammates, and the hedgehog concept, compensation becomes less important. The right people will do whatever it takes to get the job done with little regard for the compensation that comes along with it.

According to Collins (2001), employees must remain on the team out of loyalty to the other teammates and a genuine desire to be a part of a something that is larger than them. These employees are excited to be a part of a company where they can collectively create something great. The right employees will be motivated by the possibility to work with others who are equally as driven as they are and will thrive in an environment where there is the ongoing challenge of creating greatness. They will blossom in settings where they can engage in constructive abrasion with one another in order to cultivate organizational change (Collins, 2001).

The key elements to getting and keeping the right people on the team involve identifying what characteristics and skills are required for each seat. If there are people already employed by the company they must also be evaluated for their ability to productively contribute to the success of the company and whether or not they have the right skill set for the job that they are in. If they are better suited for another role then they will need to be transferred to a seat where they can excel. The right people must share the same core values as the company therefore being able to easily fit into the culture of the company. A level 5 leader must identify employees who are not just skilled but who have the right skills for the job they are in. This requires being able to identify in which roles the right people will perform best (Collins, 2001). Once the right people are identified, their ability to share in the direction and goals of the company keep them invested in the outcome therefore leading to retention and motivation.

Technology Accelerators

There is much hype regarding new technologies as they emerge onto the market which creates a fear of being left behind or missing out on something (Collins, 2001). Companies that fall into the hype of new technology will often purchase new technology for the sake of having better technology without looking at the role that it will play in the overall organization and where it fits into their purpose.

There are also the companies that fear being left behind and therefore make technological purchases or investments that do not fit in with their purpose in order to ensure their continued success. These companies recognize that they need technology in order to advance in their industry and the lack of a thorough understanding of how it should be interwoven into their work creates a sense of fear. They are afraid that if they are not quick enough or aware enough of technological advances that they will wake up one day and find themselves antiquated. According to Collins (2001), technology has little to do with taking a company from good to great but it can certainly help a company further its journey to greatness. It is not the catalyst for change, but it can be a mechanism by which change occurs.

In order to view technology with objective equanimity one must always look at it in terms of how it fits with the company's hedgehog concept and not become fearful or awestruck at the endless technological possibilities. Companies that are successful in implementing technology that furthers their purpose make such choices in a level-headed, directed, and thoughtful manner. They do not jump at opportunities that present themselves as they recognize that adherence to their purpose is what will make them great. If a new technology does not fit within their hedgehog concept, they simply ignore it and wait for the right scenario to present itself (Collins, 2001). They also recognize that greatness comes from ensuring that they make the best possible choices for the company not the one that appears the flashiest or that will draw the most attention.

Collins (2001) found that every company that was able to achieve greatness had highly developed technology. However, it was not simply that they had cutting edge technology that led to their success it was their ability to forge ahead with cutting edge technology that tied directly into their purpose therefore assisting them in becoming forerunners in their industries. Interestingly, Collins (2001) recognized that each company that made its way from good to great did so through the use of very different technological advances, making the idea of technology itself almost irrelevant in the transformation process.

The primary driver in a great company is the team of employees. Coupled with the right team, technology can be used to its fullest capacity to further the hedgehog concept but should never be the catalyst by which the company seeks to make change (Collins, 2001). Therefore in order to truly look at technological advances in an objective manner one must be quite clear on their purpose and explore all technological opportunities that present themselves with the goal of identifying whether or not it fits with this end. When a company does decide to act on a new technology they should do so with careful small steps evaluating at various intervals whether or not they are on the right track and making adjustments as necessary to remain within their structure.